Manuel Mall wrote:
<snip/>
Back to the compliance page. I assume what is required is some indication of
1.0dev compliance vs 0.20.5 compliance. To achieve that we could:
a) Add extra columns, eg.
Support (0.20.5) | Support (1.0dev)
Basic | Extended | Complete | Basic | Extended | Complete
...
This is my preference.
We aren't planning on calling the first release 1.0dev, but in recent
discussions I thought 0.9pr was the agreed release name. So we should
probably call it that on the compliance page.
b) Add extra columns like
Support
Basic | Extended | Complete
0.20.5| 1.0Dev | 0.20.5| 1.0Dev | 0.20.5| 1.0Dev |
...
c) Leave the column structure as is and record it in the column values, i.e.
instead of "Yes" we could have a list of version numbers eg. "0.20.5,
1.0dev". If its partial its indicated in brackets behind the version number.
Option c) is probably the easiest to manage as the table structure doesn't
change as we add/remove releases from the table. b) is probably the easiest
on the eye for a quick visual comparison but with each release added/removed
the whole table structure changes making it work intensive to maintain.
I don't think adding/removing releases from the compliance page is
something we plan on doing frequently. A side by side comparsion is
only required now because the Trunk code is a complete re-write.
Once the trunk code has stablized and its being used in production,
everything relating to the maintanance branch can probably be removed
from the website. When further releases are made from the Trunk, it will
simply be a matter of updating the compliance page to reflect what the
latest release supports.
Chris
